| Title |
Cumulative Low Back Load at Work as a Risk Factor of Low Back Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10926-012-9375-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pieter Coenen, Idsart Kingma, Cécile R. L. Boot, Jos W. R. Twisk, Paulien M. Bongers, Jaap H. van Dieën |
| Abstract |
Much research has been performed on physical exposures during work (e.g. lifting, trunk flexion or body vibrations) as risk factors for low back pain (LBP), however results are inconsistent. Information on the effect of doses (e.g. spinal force or low back moments) on LBP may be more reliable but is lacking yet. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prospective relationship of cumulative low back loads (CLBL) with LBP and to compare the association of this mechanical load measure to exposure measures used previously. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 22% |
| Mexico | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 308 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 2 | <1% |
| Slovenia | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 298 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 57 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 44 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 12% |
| Researcher | 31 | 10% |
| Other | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 56 | 18% |
| Unknown | 65 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 22% |
| Engineering | 43 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 25 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 43 | 14% |
| Unknown | 84 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,020,974
of 24,375,780 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#58
of 635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,231
of 167,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,375,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 167,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them